Vonda Mallicoat Laughlin

Abstract

This article discusses the modern application and jurisprudential background of the “filed rate doctrine,” which courts use to uphold the validity of rates approved by regulatory agencies and to bar claims implicating those rates. The doctrine has enduring relevance in insurance litigation and overrides certain common legal principles. The article examines the doctrine’s broad applicability and provides a comprehensive overview of the many issues affecting its use. It reviews early cases that established the doctrine—predating the U.S. Supreme Court’s oft-cited decision in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.—and shows how the doctrine emerged from judicial deference to federal railroad rate regulations enacted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, grounded in legislative intent and concerns about fairness among ratepayers. The doctrine later expanded to other federally regulated industries, including energy and telecommunications. Its applicability to insurance litigation emerged in the mid-1980s. The article highlights recent cases demonstrating how courts have applied the doctrine to the insurance industry and how litigants have attempted to avoid its application. It delves into insurance-specific issues and conflicting authority on applying the doctrine in this context, and it addresses the doctrine’s use in claims for equitable relief as well as its inapplicability to certain claims, such as allegations of regulatory violations. The article further examines its relevance to fraud claims, charges outside basic rates, antitrust claims, discrimination claims, RICO claims, breach of contract claims, and kickback allegations, along with issues of administrative review. It concludes by considering the future of the filed rate doctrine and predicting its continued significance in insurance litigation.

---